Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 7:27 PM
30 online now:
Admin (Percy), Faith, jar, JonF, ramoss, ringo, Sarah Bellum, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,890 Year: 11,926/19,786 Month: 1,707/2,641 Week: 216/708 Day: 43/40 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 46 of 293 (803686)
04-03-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by forexhr
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


It would be better to reply to each post individually

So here you argue against the share of bio-functionality in organic matter composed of 92 amino acids, by suggesting that my statement about 1 functional in 10e63 protein sequences is 'dishonest'.

I suspect that English may not be your first language, this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense... "share of bio-functionality in organic matter composed of 92 amino acids" ? I certainly didn't argue against that since I don't know what it even means.

My point about your statement regarding "1 functional in 1063 protein sequences" being dishonest is that you cite a paper for the figure, but change the context. Basically, you are making the figure up... you took the number from the paper, but not the context with which the number was used. So you don't have 1/2 of your equation, you don't know what proportion of the possible sequences are functional.

then obviously, first you need to extract this specific 'fold' from organic matter.

This is certainly NOT obvious. What does it mean to "extract from organic matter"? Are you thinking that an organism that has no protein with a gamma fold and then moves into an environment that it would be useful in and has to go to a pool of amino acids and try to assemble a 92-aa sequence that results in a functional gamma fold? Because this is an extremely unrealistic expectation of how evolution works.

And this is just for one small protein composed of 92 building blocks. Now imagine a structure that is built from millions and millions of building blocks, like heart or kidney. The probability to extract bio-functionality from such a big number of building blocks is obviously zero.

Which is why we don't believe that protein sequences and complex biological systems, such as hearts and kidneys, just pop up spontaneously without a predecessor.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 4:58 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 47 of 293 (803692)
04-03-2017 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by forexhr
04-03-2017 4:58 AM


In other words you ignore valid criticisms of your argument because other people show errors in your premises.

Trying to brow-beat opponents into submission is not a workable strategy here.

I will repeat the basic flaw in your argument again. The number of possible arrangements of atoms is irrelevant because evolution does not work by random sampling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by forexhr, posted 04-03-2017 4:58 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 48 of 293 (803726)
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


All the responses made after my last post are boiling down to one hidden assumption, and that is that evolution jumps from one bio-functional solution to another. Well, here's the news. This hidden assumption is deeply flawed and it doesn't have any basis in reality because bio-structures exist as tiny clusters of bio-functionality in a vast empty space of non-functionality. This tiny clusters are like islands where mutations can explore the same qualitative type of bio-function to at least some selectable advantage - along the edges of the islands are arrangements that are marginally beneficial, while in the center of the islands are arrangements that are strongly beneficial for the particular type of bio-function in question - gamma repressor fold for e.g. In this scenario, it is very easy to move the population rapidly up the slopes of the island to the very peak of the island. Hence, improving bio-functionality of a given type on a particular island isn’t a problem for evolution.

But the problem arises when one tries to leave the island in order to find(extract bio-functionality) other islands(new protein folds or new organs), and find itself in a vast empty space of non-functionality - in an ocean. Here, evolutionists presuppose the existence of a nice little paths of closely spaced sequentially selectable steppingstones. Unfortunately, these paths are just mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality. Once you start messing up with the information on how to build a specific organ or a protein fold you won't end up with another functional organ or protein fold, but probably with cancer and junk sequence of amino acids that is unable to fold into a specific tertiary structure. Magic jumps from one bio-functional solution to another do not exist. Hence, when one tries to leave the island of bio-functionality he will end up in the vast ocean of non-functionality. Once in the ocean, there is a lack of resources to reach another island(like I already explained). In other words, there are only two options: either natural selection will simply reverse the random walk back onto the original island from which it started or the walk will end in a death.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by vimesey, posted 04-04-2017 4:28 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2017 8:37 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2017 10:27 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2017 12:28 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 967
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.1


(2)
Message 49 of 293 (803730)
04-04-2017 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by forexhr
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


Once you start messing up with the information on how to build a specific organ or a protein fold you won't end up with another functional organ or protein fold

Not every time, no. But every so often you will - you'll end up with essentially the same organ with the same functionality, but with a small mutation, which doesn't impair the organ's function. And every so often, the mutation (or more likely a sequence of them) proves beneficial and is naturally selected as a more beneficial variant.

Do this often enough, over millions of years and even more generations, and you may end up with an organ that is so different from what it was millions of years before, that we give it a different name from the original organ. It doesn't change in one impossible leap - it changes over millions of years, by way of millions and millions of small changes, each one of which is pretty likely, given the small change involved, and the tendency towards small mutations.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by forexhr, posted 04-04-2017 3:14 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19977
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 50 of 293 (803746)
04-04-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by forexhr
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


evolution and the happy accident
All the responses made after my last post are boiling down to one hidden assumption, and that is that evolution jumps from one bio-functional solution to another. Well, here's the news. This hidden assumption is deeply flawed and it doesn't have any basis in reality because bio-structures exist as tiny clusters of bio-functionality in a vast empty space of non-functionality. ...

Actually that assumption is deeply flawed because it is completely wrong and in no way reflects how evolution actually works.

Curiously, I told you earlier that you need to learn how evolution actually works and suggested an easy way to learn: Berkeley Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution.

Doing so would stop you from making silly mistakes like this. It astounds me how many creationists/IDologists think they have proof that evolution doesn't work, and yet have no clue how it actually works.

But the problem arises when one tries to leave the island in order to find(extract bio-functionality) other islands(new protein folds or new organs), and find itself in a vast empty space of non-functionality - in an ocean. ...

And again, this is not how evolution actually works, it is more along the lines of a happy accident: a change in DNA sequence occurs and it has 3 possible outcomes:

  1. it causes the organism to die,
  2. it doesn't cause the organism to die, but does nothing for it either, or
  3. it improves the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce.

The first are called deleterious mutations, and by causing the death of the organism they cull themselves from the reproductive gene pool.

The second are called neutral mutations, junk DNA, etc. and can continue to exist and even spread (via genetic drift) within the reproductive gene pool.

The third are called beneficial mutations, and because they improve the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce, they spread by natural selection within the reproductive gene pool.

Further such changes can occur in the second and third groups, but not in the first, obviously.

When a neutral mutation later interacts with another mutation and results in a beneficial mutation is how two step mutations can result in a beneficial mutation.

In this sense every living organism is a laboratory experimenting with small changes. Do you have any idea how many living organisms cover the earth today? Do you know how many generations of such laboratories have existed since life began on earth?

Evolution does not go looking for new proteins, it happens (stumbles) upon them by the happy accident of beneficial mutations.

This is why the actual processes of evolution disprove your argument of incredulity from massive numbers of actually irrelevant proteins.

You have two choices:

First, accept that you are wrong and go learn what evolution is actually about, or

Second, deny or ignore this fact and continue to assert a false argument. Just remember that there are four types of people that don't accept evolution (based on Dawkins' article "ignorance is not a crime"):

  1. Stupid -- can't understand the processes,
  2. Ignorant -- unaware of the actual processes of evolution (a condition that is curable with education),
  3. Deceitful -- lying about or misrepresenting the actual processes of evolution, and
  4. Deluded -- ranging from stark raving mad down to being deluded by a deceitful person into believing a false narrative (a condition that is also curable with education, but it also requires a willingness to abandon the deceitful narrative in pursuit of truth). People who are "willfully ignorant" fall into this last class.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by forexhr, posted 04-04-2017 3:14 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 51 of 293 (803749)
04-04-2017 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by forexhr
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


All the responses made after my last post are boiling down to one hidden assumption, and that is that evolution jumps from one bio-functional solution to another.

Jumps? More like drudges...

What are you talking about?

This hidden assumption is deeply flawed and it doesn't have any basis in reality because bio-structures exist as tiny clusters of bio-functionality in a vast empty space of non-functionality.

Not really. With regards to the things that are evolving, all of the involved bio-structures are going to be functional. If not, they won't reproduce.

And there are no jumps to wholly different structures - just functional modifications to pre-existing ones, else no reproduction.

This tiny clusters are like islands where mutations can explore the same qualitative type of bio-function to at least some selectable advantage - along the edges of the islands are arrangements that are marginally beneficial, while in the center of the islands are arrangements that are strongly beneficial for the particular type of bio-function in question - gamma repressor fold for e.g. In this scenario, it is very easy to move the population rapidly up the slopes of the island to the very peak of the island. Hence, improving bio-functionality of a given type on a particular island isn’t a problem for evolution.

Are you describing fitness landscapes? 'Cause those are kinda like that, but not really. Here's a gif of a dynamic one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/...ynamic_fitness_landscape.gif

Notice how there are no "jumps" in the population, and that it gradually drudges from one island to another?

But the problem arises when one tries to leave the island in order to find(extract bio-functionality) other islands(new protein folds or new organs), and find itself in a vast empty space of non-functionality - in an ocean. Here, evolutionists presuppose the existence of a nice little paths of closely spaced sequentially selectable steppingstones.

I'm struggling with the analogy, but the "stepping stones" would be like a pile of toppled dominoes that are all partially laying on top of each other rather than like a stone walkway in a garden. Everything is connected and there are no gaps.

Unfortunately, these paths are just mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality. Once you start messing up with the information on how to build a specific organ or a protein fold you won't end up with another functional organ or protein fold, but probably with cancer and junk sequence of amino acids that is unable to fold into a specific tertiary structure.

Well, I'm sure that "probability" is based on bad math, so until you address that I'll continue assuming you're wrong here.

But you also don't seem to be considering that if we are talking about populations of organisms that are evolving, then the ones that are reporoducing are going to have to be fully formed and functional - otherwise they won't reproduce.

Magic jumps from one bio-functional solution to another do not exist.

True, but that is nothing to do with evolution.

Hence, when one tries to leave the island of bio-functionality he will end up in the vast ocean of non-functionality.

No, because that organism cannot function - therefore it cannot reproduce and therefore it will not contribute to evolution.

Also, you're failing to account for another important factor: the changing environment. What was once something that couldn't function well could end up being something that does when the environment is changing.

Once in the ocean, there is a lack of resources to reach another island(like I already explained).

No, your explanation is wrong and you won't address the rebuttals. It turns out that your math is bad and you're either unwilling or unable to address it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by forexhr, posted 04-04-2017 3:14 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 52 of 293 (803755)
04-04-2017 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by forexhr
04-04-2017 3:14 AM


So basically your argument boils down to the assumption that there must be places in the history of life where evolution would have had to cross an unbridgeable gap in "fitness space". Unfortunately for you, despite all your rhetoric that is just an assumption - and one that is not mentioned in your original argument.

So, at this stage, you have implicitly admitted the failure of your original argument and the replacement is hardly compelling. An assumption is hardly enough to overturn conclusions with a solid base in evidence. So, you may consider yourself refuted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by forexhr, posted 04-04-2017 3:14 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 53 of 293 (803771)
04-04-2017 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by forexhr
03-31-2017 11:51 AM


forexhr writes:

Premise 2: In order to find functional bio-structures - lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, nerves, skin, hair, ovaries, uterus, testes, prostate, penis, bones, ligaments..., it is necessary to change spatial arrangements of CHNOPS.

This is your first mistake. Life needs none of those things. Bacteria get along just fine without any of those features.

Premise 3: In order to change spatial arrangements of CHNOPS we need resources.

Premise 4: There were 10e43 resources(mutations) available in the whole evolution process.

Premise 5: There are 10e63 junk(non-selectable) arrangements of CHNOPS in just one simple bio-structure (protein).

You have these really wrong:

"Importantly, Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on these genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey et al. 1986; Hampsey et al. 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254). "
http://www.talkorigins.org/...ction4.html#protein_redundancy

There are 1E93 possible combinations of amino acids that will produce a functional cytochrome c protein, and that is just one protein. When you expand this to all functional proteins, your 1E43 calculation appears to be way off.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by forexhr, posted 03-31-2017 11:51 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Theodoric, posted 04-04-2017 6:21 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 04-04-2017 8:48 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6393
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 54 of 293 (803772)
04-04-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
04-04-2017 6:02 PM


There are 1E93 possible combinations of amino acids that will produce a functional cytochrome c protein, and that is just one protein. When you expand this to all functional proteins, your 1E43 calculation appears to be way off.

By a few magnitude.
This is an example of the inability of people to understand probability and really large numbers.
Lets take a deck of 52 cards. There are more potential ways that deck can be shuffled than there are atoms on earth.
52! is a huge number
8.06581752 × 10^67

Every time you pick up a well shuffled deck, you are almost certainly picking up a combination that has never existed before.

Here is a quick tutorial.
http://ed.ted.com/...-arrange-a-deck-of-cards-yannay-khaikin


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 04-04-2017 6:02 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 300 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 293 (803776)
04-04-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
04-04-2017 6:02 PM


Unintelligent non-design
There are 1E93 possible combinations of amino acids that will produce a functional cytochrome c protein, and that is just one protein. When you expand this to all functional proteins, your 1E43 calculation appears to be way off.

Here is another bit of evidence that supports your quotation:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 04-04-2017 6:02 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 56 of 293 (803811)
04-05-2017 7:27 AM


I would like to remind that this thread is not about just so stories, evolutionary models, hypotheses and ad hoc hypotheses, fictional explanations... but about the physical reality of matter, or more specifically, about the share of bio-functionality in it. Matter is composed of particles. The more particles there are, the more different 3D structures can be created. With 2 particles we can create 1 3D structure, with 3 particles 2 different 3D structures, with 5 particles 12, with 15 particles 3426576, with 28 particles 153511100594603 and with 1000 particles we can create 8.37x10e3271 differnet 3D structures.(1)

Hence, this is the physical reality of matter - with small number of particles you can create inconveniently large number of different 3D material structures. Or, to put it another way, all the resources in the universe, from its birth to its hypothetical death are insufficient to arrange only 1000 particles into all possible 3D structures. Given the fact that a heart for e.g. is also a 3D structure composed of particles(cells) and given the fact that there are billions of these particles, no evolutionary model, hypotheses or fictional explanation can change the fact that 10e43 evolutionary changes in spatial arrangemants of particles(mutations) are insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from these particles.

So please, stop spamming my thread with abstract claims like: "beneficial mutations can improve the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce", with arguments like: "you are wrong, here is the link, therefore you are wrong", with apeals to Dawkins' articles, with models about relationship between genotypes and reproductive success... because these things have nothing to do with neither physical reality of matter not share of bio-functionality in it.

http://kevingong.com/Polyominoes/Enumeration.html


Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 7:41 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 58 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2017 7:56 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 8:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 66 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 9:42 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 57 of 293 (803814)
04-05-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by forexhr
04-05-2017 7:27 AM


forexhr writes:

I would like to remind that this thread is not about just so stories, evolutionary models, hypotheses and ad hoc hypotheses, fictional explanations... but about the physical reality of matter, or more specifically, about the share of bio-functionality in it. Matter is composed of particles. The more particles there are, the more different 3D structures can be created. With 2 particles we can create 1 3D structure, with 3 particles 2 different 3D structures, with 5 particles 12, with 15 particles 3426576, with 28 particles 153511100594603 and with 1000 particles we can create 8.37x10e3271 differnet 3D structures.(1)

Yes, I know, Lead 6+ will never fit into a tetrahedal crystal structure. The chances are zero, no matter how much creationists tell untruths about it and call those assumptions. So, what's your point?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 7:27 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 8:36 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 58 of 293 (803816)
04-05-2017 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by forexhr
04-05-2017 7:27 AM


Back to the same mistake
quote:

Given the fact that a heart for e.g. is also a 3D structure composed of particles(cells) and given the fact that there are billions of these particles, no evolutionary model, hypotheses or fictional explanation can change the fact that 10e43 evolutionary changes in spatial arrangemants of particles(mutations) are insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from these particles.

10^43 random rearrangements wouldn't be enough. Evolution doesn't work by random rearrangements.

Now do you actually have an argument that takes account of the actual processes involved or are you going to go on wasting your time repeating the same error again and again ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 7:27 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 8:37 AM PaulK has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 59 of 293 (803822)
04-05-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by forexhr
04-05-2017 7:27 AM


This one is funny.

forexhr writes:

Hence, this is the physical reality of matter - with small number of particles you can create inconveniently large number of different 3D material structures.

Every living organism in this world and non-living matter consist of particles. Lots and lots of particles. Billions and billions of them. I'm not too sure why you consider that to be a problem for evolutionary theory.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 7:27 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 261 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 60 of 293 (803825)
04-05-2017 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Pressie
04-05-2017 7:41 AM


Pressie writes:

Yes, I know, Lead 6+ will never fit into a tetrahedal crystal structure. The chances are zero, no matter how much creationists tell untruths about it and call those assumptions. So, what's your point?


My point is that evolutionary resources are millions and millions orders of magnitude insufficient to extract functional, pump like structure from billions of particles(cells). And what's your point?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Pressie, posted 04-05-2017 7:41 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019